Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

1 S.C.R. 657 : 2025 INSC 47 Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011) 09 January 2025 [B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The two accused-appellants and their father-the third accused, were convicted by the trial court u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC for assaulting a person with deadly weapons causing his death. High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants while setting aside the conviction of their father. The complainant (PW-6) who filed the FIR was initially projected as the eye witness but later turned hostile during the trial and it was only PW-10 (mother of the deceased) who claimed to be the eye witness. The conviction of appellants was challenged in the instant appeal as being illegal causing grave miscarriage of justice to them. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.304, Part I – Armed assault leading to death – Testimony of deceased’s mother (a rustic illiterate woman) trustworthy and reliable – Corroboration from other evidence – Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt – However, motive not clearly established, though appellants fully knew that the bodily injuries caused by them were likely to cause death – Conviction accordingly converted from s.302 (by Courts below) to Part I of s.304: Held:

Merely because statement of PW-10, mother of the deceased, under Section 161 CrPC was recorded belatedly i.e. after five days which have been duly considered by the High Court and there are some inconsistencies and embellishments in her testimony before the trial court, one is not persuaded to take the view that PW-10 cannot be an eye-witness and her testimony not credible – No material contradiction between the statement made by her before the court and the previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC could be shown by the defence under Section 162(1) * Author 658 [2025] 1 S.C.R. and Explanation thereto as to render her testimony doubtful – A careful perusal of the testimony of PW-10 shows that her narration of the incident was natural, and trustworthy – PW-10, the mother of the deceased, though was related to the victim, cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be an interested witness – As also observed by the High Court, there is no reason why the mother of the victim should falsely implicate the appellants without any rhyme or reason more so when apparently there was no previous animosity of PW-10 with any of the appellants – The trial court after recording the testimony of the PW-10 and on consideration of the same found her evidence trustworthy and credible – There is no reason to question the assessment about the credibility of the witness by the Trial Court which had the advantage of seeing and hearing above the witness and all other witnesses – Even if there are certain embellishments and improvements and contradictions which are of minor nature, the evidence of PW-10 on the whole does appear to be consistent and there is no cogent reason to disbelieve her claim that she had witnessed the incident – Thus, there appears to be no patent illegality in the view taken by the trial court and the High Court. [Paras 79, 80, 81, 83, 84]

2.1. The evidence which has emerged is that the father PW-5 came to the scene after the assailants appellants had fled – As far as the mother PW-10 is concerned, on seeing the assault she ran inside to wake up her husband and when they came out, the assailants had fled – It cannot be considered to be highly unnatural for a woman not rushing to intervene and instead seek the help of a male member (her husband) when there were two persons with deadly weapons assaulting her. [Para 86]

2.

The evidence of PW-10, the sole eye witness, a hapless rustic illiterate woman visited with the vicissitude and tragedy of her son being fatally assaulted by co-villagers before her own eyes, has withstood intensive cross examination and judicial scrutiny – She has answered the questions put to her during her cross examination with spontaneity without any jitteriness and her response was natural and not elusive and prevaricating, which all are signs of truthfulness of the witness – Therefore, her testimony is trustworthy and reliable – Her evidence finds corroboration from the admissible part of the evidence of the complainant (PW-6), and her husband (PW-5) even though they had turned hostile, and the medical evidence, evidence of the Investigating Officer and other official witnesses. [Para 87] Supreme Court Reports [2025] 1 S.C.R. 659

The Prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased, for which they were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC – There is no glaring illegality or perversity in the findings arrived at the trial court and the High Court causing any grave miscarriage of justice to the appellants. [Paras 88, 89]

The motive for committing the crime has not been clearly established and proved – However, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had caused the death of the deceased fully knowing that the bodily injuries caused by the appellants were likely to cause death as the appellants were armed with deadly weapons, therefore, the appellants are convicted under Part I of Section 304 IPC – Appellants have already undergone 10 years 3 months of incarceration – Under the facts and circumstances, interest of justice will be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. [Paras 90, 91, 93 and 94] Evidence – Standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable doubt – Contradistinction to requirement of proof based on preponderance of probabilities as in case of civil proceedings. [Para 20] Evidence – FIR – Appreciation of: Held: Though the FIR is not a piece of substantive evidence, especially, when the Complainant, i.e., PW-6 did not fully support the contents of the FIR, yet, it cannot be totally ignored and is to be treated as a relevant circumstance if the same is proved by other prosecution witness, in this case by PW-14, the SHO who recorded the report in the form of FIR as stated to him by the complainant. [Para 30] Evidence – Armed assault leading to death – Noting made by the doctor on the medical record – Appreciation of: Held: Though the medical report was not made immediately after the incident, it was made without much time gap and it was made almost contemporaneously with the incident – Further, the medical record was in conformity with the FIR filed by the complainant, PW-6, thus corroborating the contents of the FIR in which the appellants were named as the assailants – Since the FIR was filed soon after the incident occurred and the names of the appellants were again Goverdhan & Anr. v.